SegWit2x will get activated for sure?

[hhttran10]

You are certainly not alone

I myself feel quite worried even though I mostly moved my funds to Litecoin and the US dollar by now. I'm afraid that if some vulnerability found and exploited to the full, it may also affect all cryptocurrencies, not just Bitcoin. And the most dreadful thing would be if major exchanges start failing and falling. This SegWit2x thing looks like a Trojan horse to me since exchanges won't be able to decline it unless they choose to delist Bitcoin completely (even if temporarily). Personally, I hope that it will be postponed for at least half a year (if not abandoned altogether)

Why Litecoin? If the Bitcoin exchange rates crash, then that is going to affect all the altcoins as well, including Litecoin. And another thing is that when the Bitcoin prices crash, the altcoin exchange rates crash even more (percentage-wise). For example, if Bitcoin prices crash by as much as 50%, then it is possible that the altcoin prices can crash by a massive 95%.

Faulty logic. First, if bitcoin crash 50% in terms of USD, then an altcoin (say coin X) will only crash 50% in terms of USD, if its value in satoshi doesn't change. Second, if if bitcoin crash 50% in terms of USD, and coin X's satoshi price is up by 10 times (because people fleeing from BTC and use it to bid up the price of coin X), then in this case, coin X will go up 5x in terms of USD.

Your scenario only happens when BTC crashes, and at the same time coin X crashes agaisnt BTC.

[1715498674]

1715498674

[deisik]

You are certainly not alone

I myself feel quite worried even though I mostly moved my funds to Litecoin and the US dollar by now. I'm afraid that if some vulnerability found and exploited to the full, it may also affect all cryptocurrencies, not just Bitcoin. And the most dreadful thing would be if major exchanges start failing and falling. This SegWit2x thing looks like a Trojan horse to me since exchanges won't be able to decline it unless they choose to delist Bitcoin completely (even if temporarily). Personally, I hope that it will be postponed for at least half a year (if not abandoned altogether)

Why Litecoin? If the Bitcoin exchange rates crash, then that is going to affect all the altcoins as well, including Litecoin. And another thing is that when the Bitcoin prices crash, the altcoin exchange rates crash even more (percentage-wise). For example, if Bitcoin prices crash by as much as 50%, then it is possible that the altcoin prices can crash by a massive 95%

This is still the lesser of two (or even more) evils

And, as I said, I moved my funds to Litecoin AND the US dollar. Further, if Bitcoin eventually kicks the bucket (or just turns extremely toxic beyond repair and hope), this wouldn't mean that all altcoins are going to end up like that (though some will certainly do, more power to them). As to me, this is exactly where Litecoin has all the chances to take up the lead and replace Bitcoin since it is basically the same Bitcoin but with its issues already efficiently and effectively solved (read no rogue miners, no more Jihan and his evil minions). And finally, Litecoin price is going against Bitcoin's for the second day in a row. Right now Bitcoin goes up while Litecoin goes down. Yesterday, it was the reverse. That could easily mean that people are already considering Litecoin as a genuine alternative to Bitcoin

[squatz1]

I think when the time comes the miners are all going to come out and backout out of this due to not really supporting the cause and being unable to support it as a whole. They did this to do something, maybe move the market a bit or stabilize the price but it isn't going to last to AUG 1st when people find out they weren't being serious.

Why would the miners want want to change anything, they could just stay the way they are and reap in the TX fees and just sit here with no change in sight while the fees get higher and higher.

I don't think it's going to get activated, ever.

[anonppcoin]

Why would the miners want want to change anything, they could just stay the way they are and reap in the TX fees and just sit here with no change in sight while the fees get higher and higher.

That's easy to answer: the UASF did its job. The threat made last week to hard fork was quite telling.

[The One]

Ok lets go through the facts and scenarios.

Segwit by Core activated at 95%, no blocksize increase.

Failed.

Segwit2x by a group (what's their agenda?) activated at 80%, segwit first then 2mb block.

What guarantees is there that 2mb will happen? As far as i know, none.

Thus segwit2x is a fraudulent attempt to activate segwit at 80%, instead of 95% and no blocksize increase at all.

After all why not do segwit and 2mb at the same time?

Or 2mb first then segwit?

Once again i see segwit being forced on users by centralised group of companies acting in their own interest.

The fee system is absolutely bonkers and horrendous idea, design by clueless fuckwits whom don't understand economic.

If by miracle we ever get a blocksize increase, 2mb is not going to be enough.

[unamis76]

It's not a decent increase, it's a really, really big increase... Especially comparing to support to other consensus proposals.

Maybe this is what will start scaling for Bitcoin. If so, great! I think this is what pleases most of the crowd...

[akamit]

I am very nervous after reading all the posts in this thread.
Just want to ask to my seniors, experienced bitcoiners, "what should I/we do?"

Should I/we sale all btc and convert into usd? will it be the good decision? 

If the fear spreads all over the community then the btc price will drop a lot? what do you think?

[Variogam]

Segwit2x by a group (what's their agenda?) activated at 80%, segwit first then 2mb block.

What guarantees is there that 2mb will happen? As far as i know, none.

Why in this order is clear, the aim of the Segwit2x is SegWit activated before Aug 1 to prevent Bitcoin split. The second aim, 2MB base blocksize, follows in few months later so everyone outside NYA group have enought time to modify their software to be compatible with Bitcoin 2MB base blocksize. The change with 2MB is pretty straight forward, it activates at certain block height, one transaction is still restricted to 1MB, and weight at 8MB. Nothing complicated.

NYA signers going to run Segwit2x code before it ever activates, and because they represent huge share in Bitcoin economy, there is huge incentive for everone else to follow 2MB to prevent nasty Bitcoin split. Acceptance of  Segwit2x code if activated before Aug 1 from every major exchange outside the NYA group proves this. Probably only few hobbysts and those shorting Bitcoin might oppose the 2MB though, you cant make everyone happy or prevent discruption from those profit seekers.

[pooya87]

You are certainly not alone

I myself feel quite worried even though I mostly moved my funds to Litecoin and the US dollar by now. I'm afraid that if some vulnerability found and exploited to the full, it may also affect all cryptocurrencies, not just Bitcoin. And the most dreadful thing would be if major exchanges start failing and falling. This SegWit2x thing looks like a Trojan horse to me since exchanges won't be able to decline it unless they choose to delist Bitcoin completely (even if temporarily). Personally, I hope that it will be postponed for at least half a year (if not abandoned altogether)

Why Litecoin? If the Bitcoin exchange rates crash, then that is going to affect all the altcoins as well, including Litecoin. And another thing is that when the Bitcoin prices crash, the altcoin exchange rates crash even more (percentage-wise). For example, if Bitcoin prices crash by as much as 50%, then it is possible that the altcoin prices can crash by a massive 95%.

Faulty logic. First, if bitcoin crash 50% in terms of USD, then an altcoin (say coin X) will only crash 50% in terms of USD, if its value in satoshi doesn't change. Second, if if bitcoin crash 50% in terms of USD, and coin X's satoshi price is up by 10 times (because people fleeing from BTC and use it to bid up the price of coin X), then in this case, coin X will go up 5x in terms of USD.

Your scenario only happens when BTC crashes, and at the same time coin X crashes agaisnt BTC.

that is not logic, that is called history! and each time bitcoin price goes down it takes every other altcoin with it except some random tiny altcoin which has been getting pumped from 10 satoshi to 20 satoshi. otherwise all of them get dumped hard.
and it is not just about how much they go down, it is the fact that they will go down. even if an altcoin goes down -10% since nobody has any faith in any of the altcoins they will all start panic selling and crash it to -90%

I am very nervous after reading all the posts in this thread.
Just want to ask to my seniors, experienced bitcoiners, "what should I/we do?"

Should I/we sale all btc and convert into usd? will it be the good decision? 

If the fear spreads all over the community then the btc price will drop a lot? what do you think?

most of the comments you read here are exaggerating the situation. and they represent their "uneducated assumptions" as hard facts with 100% certainty! specially those who repeat it over and over.

the fact is, it is good to have some doubts and be nervous, selling some is good to manage the risks. but despite what you said about fear, there is no fear. there is a lot of hope and price is rising strongly!

[Krimster]

Hello!

New to this forum, been reading for a few days and trying to educate myself in these issues, but still trying to understand:

Can someone explain, or more likely, link to me, what is so dangerous about the whole SegWit2x issue? For what I know, Litecoin already does SegWit, and as for the 2 MB block, is it really that much or that complex? On the surface it seems rather straightforward. To me it sounds like anything that improves scalability will strengthen BTC. Maybe not its value short-term, but for sure its validity as a currency

You simply can't take and merge two two different codebases in one project

And hope that there wouldn't be bugs. Now imagine that some dude has a pacemaker implanted, so if its software has a bug and the device malfunctions due to this bug, the poor dude may get instantly killed by an electric discharge. It is the same with forcing such updates on cryptocurrencies. One bug found and exploited may render the whole system totally unusable. And it doesn't really matter how complex the resulting code will be, you can safely assume that it is complex enough to contain a few nasty bugs that may require many months of intensive testing to weed them out. If anything, that has already been proven in practice with BU

Yeah... I suppose bugs can happen and, depending on the bugs, the outcome can be a disaster. However, I have read that LTC and BTC are built upon the same code, so porting the features should be *relatively* simple, yet still...

I guess I simply don't have enough technical knowledge to make a judgemente on the whole thing. I can see both sides of the discussion, huge upside (better scalability giving BTC higher value), huge downside (bugs could essentially anhihilate BTC as a currency). Heck, even the simple *fear* of a bug can make the price tank.

[OmegaStarScream]

Either I don't understand this correctly or I'm missing something. Trace Mayer tweeted "#SegWit is coming. Fight w/ your full node #UASF. #BIP148 only has Hobbits & a few Ents. #BIP149 will have all Ents". Why is that? I mean If SegWit2X is going to get activated in the next a few days, what's the point from continuing to run UASF full nodes If UASF was meant to activate SegWit as well.

[deisik]

Hello!

New to this forum, been reading for a few days and trying to educate myself in these issues, but still trying to understand:

Can someone explain, or more likely, link to me, what is so dangerous about the whole SegWit2x issue? For what I know, Litecoin already does SegWit, and as for the 2 MB block, is it really that much or that complex? On the surface it seems rather straightforward. To me it sounds like anything that improves scalability will strengthen BTC. Maybe not its value short-term, but for sure its validity as a currency

You simply can't take and merge two two different codebases in one project

And hope that there wouldn't be bugs. Now imagine that some dude has a pacemaker implanted, so if its software has a bug and the device malfunctions due to this bug, the poor dude may get instantly killed by an electric discharge. It is the same with forcing such updates on cryptocurrencies. One bug found and exploited may render the whole system totally unusable. And it doesn't really matter how complex the resulting code will be, you can safely assume that it is complex enough to contain a few nasty bugs that may require many months of intensive testing to weed them out. If anything, that has already been proven in practice with BU

Yeah... I suppose bugs can happen and, depending on the bugs, the outcome can be a disaster. However, I have read that LTC and BTC are built upon the same code, so porting the features should be *relatively* simple, yet still

I guess you refer to SegWit here

Porting is never easy, even porting absolutely the same code which is a little more complicated than "Hello, World!" to another hardware platform or operating system is a hell of a job. Aside from that, Litecoin has never been under the load where SegWit would make the difference (and still less Lightning Network), so we can't say how it will work in practice given Bitcoin numbers. As the saying goes, in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not. And this is only one part of the whole thing, while the other (2M blocks) seems not to have been tested under real load at all. Changing just one variable (constant) may lead to undefined behavior (the regular cause for really nasty bugs) somewhere down the line (e.g. due to integer overflow)

[spartacusrex]

Either I don't understand this correctly or I'm missing something. Trace Mayer tweeted "#SegWit is coming. Fight w/ your full node #UASF. #BIP148 only has Hobbits & a few Ents. #BIP149 will have all Ents". Why is that? I mean If SegWit2X is going to get activated in the next a few days, what's the point from continuing to run UASF full nodes If UASF was meant to activate SegWit as well.

Because IF SegWit2x gets done (a big IF), then the UASF will have no affect as all the blocks will be signalling for SegWit.

If SegWit2x doesn't happen then UASF WILL split off, and only allow SegWit signalling blocks. (Anyone's guess how that plays out..)

Either way - keep running UASF.

...

As I've said in the other thread, the CORE devs have clearly rejected SegWit2x. As far as their concerned it's an ALT coin.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

..

The ONLY way this works out.. is if BIP141 activates SegWit (The one that's been tested and ready for 2 YEARS - not knocked up in a month). And then we fight over the 2MB HardFork block increase, that Again, CORE will not support.

And running the UASF, means you'll need to be signalling BIP141, so again KEEP RUNNING UASF.

..

It is a 'quite-extraordinary-cluster-fuck.'

No clear path ahead at all IMHO.

..

... you've got to lol.

(And in answer to the OP question - no. It's a maybe at best. Just like every other BIP out there..)

[Kprawn]

I hate this "Let's shoot the arrow into thin air, and hope for the best" approach to this. I would like to see the final product going through Alpha

& Beta testing and excessive peer review, before something is released into the wild. We have seen this "Wild west" approach before {BU} and

look how that turned out. 

[Ayers]

Either I don't understand this correctly or I'm missing something. Trace Mayer tweeted "#SegWit is coming. Fight w/ your full node #UASF. #BIP148 only has Hobbits & a few Ents. #BIP149 will have all Ents". Why is that? I mean If SegWit2X is going to get activated in the next a few days, what's the point from continuing to run UASF full nodes If UASF was meant to activate SegWit as well.

Because IF SegWit2x gets done (a big IF), then the UASF will have no affect as all the blocks will be signalling for SegWit.

If SegWit2x doesn't happen then UASF WILL split off, and only allow SegWit signalling blocks. (Anyone's guess how that plays out..)

Either way - keep running UASF.

...

As I've said in the other thread, the CORE devs have clearly rejected SegWit2x. As far as their concerned it's an ALT coin.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

..

The ONLY way this works out.. is if BIP141 activates SegWit (The one that's been tested and ready for 2 YEARS - not knocked up in a month). And then we fight over the 2MB HardFork block increase, that Again, CORE will not support.

And running the UASF, means you'll need to be signalling BIP141, so again KEEP RUNNING UASF.

..

It is a 'quite-extraordinary-cluster-fuck.'

No clear path ahead at all IMHO.

..

... you've got to lol.

(And in answer to the OP question - no. It's a maybe at best. Just like every other BIP out there..)

wy now segwit2x matter more than segwit? i means why all of sudden segwit2x get the activation, when  in allt his time normal segwit was ignore by miners and everything? is because uasf forcing the activation, or they like better this proposal?

[DooMAD]

As I've said in the other thread, the CORE devs have clearly rejected SegWit2x. As far as their concerned it's an ALT coin.

Core don't support UASF either.  Keep peddling double standards and hoping no one will notice, though.  BIP148 hasn't been merged into Core, nor is there any sign that it will be any time soon.  And unlike UASF, SegWit2x has more than ample mining support, so of the two, 'User Anticipated Spectacular Falter' is the one more likely to result in an altcoin.

The ONLY way this works out.. is if BIP141 activates SegWit (The one that's been tested and ready for 2 YEARS - not knocked up in a month). And then we fight over the 2MB HardFork block increase, that Again, CORE will not support.

The concept of UASF is barely 5 months old and the code to trigger it was knocked up in about the same time, so UASF isn't "tested and ready for 2 years" either.  Double standards again.  

Also BIP141's natural deployment needs 95% of miner support.  That was literally NEVER going to happen on its own because there was too much opposition.  The blocksize is the "bribe" apparently needed for miners to push it through.  BIP91 means that SegWit can be activated using either bit1 or bit4 signalling, which is why pools who previously favoured all manner of different proposals can all get together and support SegWit2x.  Plus it only needs 80% which we have already achieved and only need to maintain.  If everyone else moves forward with this, I can assure you Core will follow along for the ride.  They aren't willingly going to relegate themselves to maintaining some lonely minority chain in isolation with a few 1MB zealots to keep them company.

[OmegaStarScream]

For how long they should maintain the 80% in order to get activated? 1000 blocks? I also don't get http://segwit.co/ is it only checking for bit 4 signals while the SegWit2X is 1 bit because the percentage doesn't look correct to me.

[CraigWrightBTC]

On another note, I see BTCC has just started flagging Segwit2x too, so I would expect > 80% for sure by the end of today!

Yes, more than 80% miners support for segwit 2x, i hope it will be impact on bitcoins price will be more expensive
and the comunity of bitcoins never become two side, if it will be succesfull not be found issue on bitcoins network
i am sure bitcoins proggress for next time will be adopted become cryptocurrency.

[cryptothinker]

From what I've seen, there is not a single core developer supporting it... I think they're playing with fire here.

This could not trigger a PoW change?

[MMysterious]

Nice discussion. The NYA most probably composed majority of bitcoin miners and stake holders. I am more concerned on its price. I wonder what will be the world's reaction on bitcoin if NYA really takes over its blockchain.